From: OBRIEN Audrey
Sent: Wed Jul 10 13:52:55 2013
To: FULLER Brian
Subject: RE: CT Rules Final Proposed Changes
Importance: Normal
Yes.
Audrey
From: FULLER Brian
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 1:51 PM
To: OBRIEN Audrey
Subject: FW: CT Rules Final Proposed Changes
Are you OK with this?
Thanks
From: PICKERELL Loretta
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 10:18 PM
To: FULLER Brian; OBRIEN Audrey; DRUBACK Lissa
Cc: WILES Wendy
Subject: RE: CT Rules Final Proposed Changes
I can live with these recommendations – appreciate your streamlining.
Thanks
Loretta
From: FULLER Brian
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 4:44 PM
To: PICKERELL Loretta; OBRIEN Audrey; DRUBACK Lissa
Cc: WILES Wendy
Subject: CT Rules Final Proposed Changes
Importance: High
Hi,
Based on additional conversations with stakeholders, internal team members and final draft rule review we are proposing the following changes to the CT Rules. Please let me know your thoughts by Thursday noon. (If you are unable to meet this let me know, but we need to finalize this by the end of the day Thursday.)
1. Current compost rules require that permitted facilities keep “all required records” for 5 years. They require that all compost registration (lower risk) facilities keep “all required records” for 10 years. (OAR 340-096-0110 (3)(g) and OAR 340-096-100 (3)(f). Our proposed CT rules change the requirement for permitted compost facilities to 10 years, keep the requirement for compost registration at 10 years, add a 10 year requirement for both CT Registrations and Permits (340-096-0190 (3)(f) and 340-096-0200(3)(f).
I can’t see a reason where we would need to see the last 10 years of records for the facilities above. Neither Bob or Peter could either. I see this as an unnecessary burden on the regulated community for something that we have no current identified need for. Bob, Peter and I are recommending changing all 4 scenarios to keeping “all required records” for 5 years, not 10.
2. One of the proposed conversion technology permit/registration exemption criteria is “Less than twenty percent by weight of the incoming feedstock is disposed of as solid or hazardous waste in a landfill or incinerator, as measured over a 6-month period” (340-096-0160 (4)(b)(C)). We received public comment on this that the percentage was too low (originally 10%) and that there was no timeframe (we’ve added six months).
The percentage and time frame standards are arbitrary. There is no specific risk that a SW permit or registration would address if a facility went over 20% by weight over a 6 month period. From a regional perspective I see this as being difficult to measure and implement with no clear environmental risk being addressed. There is no such limitation on a recycling facility. If we ever try to establish MRF recovery standards, this could be viewed as a potentially precedent setting standard by MRFs. This criteria and the …”facility not routinely charging a tip fee for feedstocks…” address the same issue (feedstocks being treated as a valuable commodity and therefore serving a useful purpose) are duplicative. Bob, Peter and I are recommending deleting the <20% permit/registration exemption criteria from the proposed rules. (Loretta – Peter said to let you know that he has changed his mind on this from two weeks ago.)
Can you live with these recommendations?
Please let me know if you have questions, concerns or other ideas.
Thanks
Brian Fuller
Manager - Hazardous and Solid Waste Programs
Oregon DEQ - Western Region
541-687-7327 - Office
541-501-3349 - Mobile